Blog » WHEN ARE TRADEMARK RIGHTS EXHAUSTED IN THE EU? PART II – THE EXCEPTIONS
WHEN ARE TRADEMARK RIGHTS EXHAUSTED IN THE EU? PART II – THE EXCEPTIONS
07 May 2019
In case trademarked goods have been put on the market by the proprietor or with his consent in the EEA, the exhaustion rule allows the parallel importer to further commercialize those products. However, this is not the case, if the trademark proprietor has legitimate reasons to oppose the commercialization. In this article we summarize the main cases when the proprietor can prohibit the use of the trademark.
1. Legitimate reasons to oppose
As a small reminder, based on the exhaustion rule the use of the national or EU trademark cannot be prohibited in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the EEA under that trademark by the proprietor or with his consent.
The CJEU developed the types of cases, where the proprietor, despite the fulfilment of the above conditions, has legitimate reasons to oppose the further commercialization of the goods.
The main types of cases are the following:
- serious damage to reputation,
- (false) impression of commercial connection
2. Serious damage to reputation
The CJEU emphasized that the damage done to the reputation of a trademark may, in principle, be a legitimate reason to oppose further commercialization of goods.
The question whether a damage to reputation of the trademark is done, arose in relation with the second hand market.
In this context, the CJEU held that generally, it cannot be deemed seriously detrimental to the reputation of the trademark if the trader uses the indications ‘used’ or ‘second-hand’ in order to announce the resale of the trademarked goods.
3. Impression of commercial connection
As a general principle the proprietor has a legitimate reason to oppose the further commercialization when a reseller uses the trademark in advertising in a such a way that it may give a rise to the impression that there is a commercial connection between the reseller and the proprietor.
However, if there is no risk that the public will be led to believe that there is a commercial connection between the reseller and the proprietor, the mere fact that the use of the trademark in advertising lends the reseller’s own business an aura of quality does not constitute a legitimate reason to oppose the further commercialization.
De-branding means cases where the original trademark is removed, and it is replaced by the trademark of the reseller.
The CJEU established that this gives rise to the proprietor to oppose the use of the original trademark for advertising purposes. The reason for that is that otherwise the consumers could no longer distinguish clearly between the goods originating from the proprietor and from the reseller which would damage the origin function of the trademark.
Repackaging comprises cases where the reseller changes the package of the goods without altering the goods themselves.
The CJEU established five conditions which exclude the opposition to the further commercialization as listed below:
- opposing would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between the Member States,
- repackaging does not affect the original condition of the product inside,
- the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the goods,
- the presentation of the repackaged products is not detrimental to the reputation of the trademark and the proprietor,
- the importer gives prior notice to the proprietor before putting the product on sale
Refilling means cases where trademarked containers are refilled by a supplier who is not an authorized dealer of the proprietor after the first sale.
In relation to those situations, the CJEU established that the sale of the products exhausted trademark rights and transferred to the purchaser the right to use the product freely. This includes the right to exchange the product or have it refilled, once the original contents have been consumed, by an undertaking of his choice, that is to say, not only by that licensee and proprietor, but also by one of its competitors.
LAWFUL DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY - PART VI: TERMINATION WITHOUT NOTICE
In the last two articles of our series on “lawful dismissal” we present the most severe sanction that can be applied to an employee, the immediate (formerly: extraordinary) termination. This measure is applied in serious incidents only, so many employers believe that they will not need to use the sanction. But, as we know, the devil does not sleep and it is in the details, so the employer needs to be prepared for this scenario as well to avoid further inconvenience.Read more »
5 CURRENT GDPR-FINES ACROSS EUROPE – LEARN FROM OTHERS’ MISTAKES
The supervisory authorities in Europe controlling compliance with the GDPR have not sat on their hands in the last couple of months. In this short article we collected five interesting cases from the recent past. The wide discretionary powers of the data protection authority is well illustrated by the fact that sometimes the GDPR fine was only EUR 2000, but in another case a company has been fined for EUR 11,5 Million! Continue reading if you would like to avoid the same or similar expensive errors.Read more »
LAWFUL DISMISSAL IN HUNGARY - PART V: PROTECTION AGAINST DISMISSAL
In the previous articles on the lawful dismissal, we discussed that, ranging from the employee’s behaviour to the employer’s reorganization, there can be many legitimate reasons for dismissal by the employer. However, irrespective of the legitimate reason, the employment relationship cannot be terminated if the employee is protected against dismissal by law (i.e. the Labour Code). From our article, you can learn about these protections.Read more »